u/ftx10SF

Hi!

Is anyone willing to share book recommendations on the Civil War/Civil War Era?

My criteria: “academic” history books, “popular” history books written by reliable sources (preferably a “real” (i.e. PhD-holding) historian, minimal overlap with my list below.

Things I am not looking for: no memoirs, no biographies, no primary sources.

This is for personal/hobby purposes. Trying to build a “master reading list” of sorts. I know there’s countless book on the Civil War, and a personal library on the Civil War could be essentially as large as I’m willing to make it. But, my goal is the “best” collection of books that cover the lead up to the war, the war, and Reconstruction. I know that basically the entirety of the 1800s, but that’s fine.

Anyway, any recommendations are welcome!!!

Thanks!!!

1. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 — Daniel Walker Howe (2007)

2. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 — David M. Potter and Don E. Fehrenbacher** **(1977)

3. The War Before the War — Andrew Delbanco (2018)

4. Battle Cry of Freedom — James M. McPherson (1988)

5. A Savage War: A Military History of the Civil War — Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh & Williamson Murray (2016)

6. War on the Waters: The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861–1865 — James M. McPherson (2012)

7. The Centennial History of the Civil War — Bruce Catton
   The Coming Fury (1961)
   Terrible Swift Sword (1963)
   Never Call Retreat (1965)

8. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 — Eric Foner (1988)

9. The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865–1896 — Richard White (2017)

10. The Klan War — Fergus M. Bordewich (2023)

11. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory — David W. Blight (2001)

I heard somewhere that one historical argument against sending large numbers of women into frontline combat was based on demographic concerns rather than exclusively questions of capability.

The argument went something like this: After a devastating war, a society can more easily recover from the loss of men than from the loss of women because population growth is ultimately constrained by the number of women able to bear children. Since a relatively small number of surviving men can father children with many women, female casualties impose a greater long-term cost on population recovery. Keeping women out of frontline combat was therefore seen as a strategy for preserving a nation’s/state’s ability to rebuild its population after major conflicts, regardless of their capability for said warfare.

This *sounds* plausible, but feels too simplistic. I don’t know enough history/anthropology to know if any society or culture *explicitly* held this view.

My question: (1) Is this functionally true? (2) Is this historically true? Did any society actually think this way?

I heard somewhere that one historical argument against sending large numbers of women into frontline combat was based on demographic concerns rather than exclusively questions of capability.

The argument went something like this: After a devastating war, a society can more easily recover from the loss of men than from the loss of women because population growth is ultimately constrained by the number of women able to bear children. Since a relatively small number of surviving men can father children with many women, female casualties impose a greater long-term cost on population recovery. Keeping women out of frontline combat was therefore seen as a strategy for preserving a nation’s/state’s ability to rebuild its population after major conflicts, regardless of their capability for said warfare.

This *sounds* plausible, but feels too simplistic. I don’t know enough history/anthropology to know if any society or culture *explicitly* held this view.

My question: (1) Is this functionally true? (2) Is this historically true? Did any society actually think this way?

I’ve long been confused why we in English say “has got” / “have got”.

Examples:

America’s Got Talent (meaning America has got talent).

I’ve got to get going.

He’s got to do his homework.

As opposed to:

America has talent.

I have to go.

He has to do his homework.

Why the extra words? Does the use of “got” in those sentences convey something linguistically that is lost if they only said “has” or “have”?

Thanks!